|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People don't read the rules of the game before they play, or do you just think people are stupid?
The player put an 18 in Wisdom, so either they know how clerics work or they just got lucky with the guessing.
10 is average, neither plus or minus. It is crappy for a fighter but pretty good for a wizard.
This player has a character they like to play that doesn't seem to be causing problems for anyone else since it fills a party need. How horrible...don't they know they are supposed to be "winning"...
Rolling stats doesn't change point dumping. If you roll a 7, its still going to go in cha or whatever for that character, if you're optimizing the same way
I'd say it does. When you put a low roll in a stat you don't need much, that's a different process from selling down a stat. In the rolled system, you've got that low roll no matter what. It has to go somewhere and you are not compensated for it. If you sell a stat down in a point-buy system, you get more points to spend elsewhere. That's the difference. You may have an incentive to minimize the impact of a low value in both systems, but the point-buy system gives you further incentive to choose to have a low value rather than be stuck with one.
I'd find out what the player really wants his cleric to be. If he wants to be a caster (but just doesn't have the spells yet), let him find a couple of scrolls or mostly-used wand so he won't be afraid of using up his spells. If he wants to get in front and "mix it up" in melee, let the party find a breastplate and large shield or longspear that fit him decently. Life will be easier once he has a better AC.
|
|
And again I ask where is the problem.
Let's go to the checklist.
1. Is the player having fun? Seems so.
2. Does the player contribute to the group? He's a cleric in a party with mainly frontline guys, so almost certainly healing is needed.
So where is the problem? If the character is too weak, they will die and he can roll another one. They aren't stealing spotlight, they are manipulating rules, they are being disruptive.
So what is the problem?
People don't read the rules of the game before they play, or do you just think people are stupid?
The player put an 18 in Wisdom, so either they know how clerics work or they just got lucky with the guessing.
10 is average, neither plus or minus. It is crappy for a fighter but pretty good for a wizard.
This player has a character they like to play that doesn't seem to be causing problems for anyone else since it fills a party need. How horrible...don't they know they are supposed to be "winning"...
That's true to a point, but if it is truly a case of someone building a caster priest and than wanting to play a front line battle priest, than there is a problem that justifies a rebuild. If it's simply someone waiting for the spell list to kick in, giving them a longspear and have them aid another for a few levels works, but if they truly want to be on the frontlines, this character is not going to be any fun for anybody for very long. Obviously, without hearing the other side, we can't really tell which it really is, but there is definitely room for potential concern from what I've seen.
I'd say it does. When you put a low roll in a stat you don't need much, that's a different process from selling down a stat. In the rolled system, you've got that low roll no matter what. It has to go somewhere and you are not compensated for it. If you sell a stat down in a point-buy system, you get more points to spend elsewhere. That's the difference. You may have an incentive to minimize the impact of a low value in both systems, but the point-buy system gives you further incentive to choose to have a low value rather than be stuck with one.
Rolling stats doesn't change point dumping. If you roll a 7, its still going to go in cha or whatever for that character, if you're optimizing the same way
Ideally, all stats would actually matter for all classes... but average scores wouldn't be a crippling disadvantage. Problem solved!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am going to get a tattoo that just says '2nd edition sandbox stat-roll gridless grognard' all socal-909-style across the backs of my shoulders
or possibly on my neck
I am hoping it will stop this thread
I would get it on my chest but I already have a tattoo there of Valeros and Merisiel walking away looking dejected while Seelah is just laughing hysterically at them
*headdesk*
Why are people still convinced that playing a mechanically advantageous character in combat is tantamount to mindless, uncreative munchkinism and roleplay blasphemy?
Hi! I min-max because I play in a game where my characters understand that adventuring is a life or death profession and if they don't become their best, they, or their friends, will probably die. I figure, taking into consideration verisimilitude, as time passes, they're going to want to get, I don't know, pretty damn good at what they do, if only to survive against the mounting challenges ahead. Does it become overkill at times? Yeah, it does, but we don't rest after every encounter and have to go long stretches relying on what we have.
If you're gimping yourself to the point of uselessness, which I don't think the character the OP mentioned is, you're not a great roleplayer, you're an idiot that's going to screw up your friends fun by not pulling your weight and getting everyone killed.
Does that mean everyone has to be a DPR monster or Shrodinger's Wizard? No; but playing the blind, deaf, mute, limbless commoner doesn't make you a good RPer. It just means you like to play useless characters.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see anything wrong with that character. If the player is happy with it, why make him change it? And if he actually wants to gimp it, what's the matter with that? In the worst-case-scenario, he'll die and reroll. It's not like the actual player will die.
So he grabbed a sword and ran into the front line. He had fun taking swings at a monster.
Wouldn't you?
I'm playing a wizard in Reign of Winter. Level 1, LG Samsaran Thassilonian Abjurer, PB 20, no Hero Points. Stats after racial mods: 10/10/8/18/14/14
First day, Mage Armor, Protection from Evil and Endure Elements were it.
At one point during an encounter, she tried to parlay and was ignored, got angry and charged with a longsword. No proficiency, so negative to hit.
Believe me, it felt fantastic to whack that fey senseless.
Was that even remotely efficient? Hell no. But it. Was. Fun.
If your player has fun playing like that, why stop him?
I don't see anything wrong with that character. If the player is happy with it, why make him change it? And if he actually wants to gimp it, what's the matter with that? In the worst-case-scenario, he'll die and reroll. It's not like the actual player will die.
That depends on if he's going to end up taking the party down with him when he dies and how the other players feel about it. In the OP, it sounded like the others would have been in serious trouble without his heals and while his actions may not have been problematic all the time, in that particular fight, the party needed actual help from the character, not just someone barely managing to avoid being dead weight. It's hard to tell precisely where the disconnect was and what the proper remedy is, but it does sound as though there is a disconnect somewhere, and the sooner it is addressed, the happier everyone will be, including the player who made that character. Ultimately, even if that player is enjoying that character and that play style right now, at least one other person at the table is less than satisfied with the overall experience being created, and it's doubtful that even that player would enjoy that kind of lack of success routinely.
I don't see anything wrong with that character. If the player is happy with it, why make him change it? And if he actually wants to gimp it, what's the matter with that? In the worst-case-scenario, he'll die and reroll. It's not like the actual player will die.That depends on if he's going to end up taking the party down with him when he dies and how the other players feel about it. In the OP, it sounded like the others would have been in serious trouble without his heals and while his actions may not have been problematic all the time, in that particular fight, the party needed actual help from the character, not just someone barely managing to avoid being dead weight. It's hard to tell precisely where the disconnect was and what the proper remedy is, but it does sound as though there is a disconnect somewhere, and the sooner it is addressed, the happier everyone will be, including the player who made that character. Ultimately, even if that player is enjoying that character and that play style right now, at least one other person at the table is less than satisfied with the overall experience being created, and it's doubtful that even that player would enjoy that kind of lack of success routinely.
Honestly thinking like this is plain selfish. There is nothing in the rules that say that if things turn bad on you and your cleric goes down that you have to stay and fight. Run away and live to fight another day if that happens. Leave the poor player who is doing his "sub-optimal" cleric alone, this isn't your game and as long as HE is having fun that's all that matters. The other players who are power gaming munchkins will survive and maybe the player with the cleric will have to roll up a new character, but seriously who cares? It's a game and we all know that PC's die all the time.
Keep in mind that the GM / OP does not only disallow point buys, he ALSO disallows to distribute the scores according to the player's wishes - they are lined up in the order of rolling. So the 14 Int was mandated by the GM's rules, not necessarily the player's wishes. The GM has no room to complain.
Keep in mind that the GM / OP does not only disallow point buys, he ALSO disallows to distribute the scores according to the player's wishes - they are lined up in the order of rolling. So the 14 Int was mandated by the GM's rules, not necessarily the player's wishes. The GM has no room to complain.
I think you are mistaken. In fact, the GM has said that the player put the 14 in Intelligence and he thought the player was going to put the 7 in Strength at one point. So if he's saying that, clearly he isn't requiring them to be rolled in order.
Was the cleric out of spells? That would make sense as to why he was up front. I mean, you stuck the party with a BRUTAL encounter at level 1, and by your tone, you seemed to have it out for the cleric to begin with.
So in fairness to the player, what was the situation with HIM? Out of spells? New to the game? Didn't know how many spells per day he had? Didn't have any more spells that would help the combat, so he tried to help with melee?
I have to be honest, I ran a battle cleric in 3.5 with almost the EXACT same statline, and he was a beast in combat. Not because he beat things to death with a pointy piece of metal, but because his DCs were hard to beat. His spells did tons of damage. And you know what? He sucked for the first few levels because he never had enough spells.
As a DM, it is YOUR responsibility to award player ingenuity. Give him a break every now and then if he ran out of spells. Pull some punches if he is new and didn't know that a monster with three attacks could kick him senseless at level 1. If he doesn't know the system, help him. If he is building his character like this to be more awesome in a few levels, don't purposefully try to kill him.
However, there is a flip side to that. If he does know the system, and did that because he made a truly DUMB decision, then you are more than welcome to let the dice fall where they may. A character dying from a player's dumb decision is permissible. A character dying because the DM has a personal vendetta against him for being unoptimized....
Well, that calls for a new DM.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people enjoy D&D by completely optimizing their character, putting stats in the slots that have been discussed over and over to be the order for characters (I.E. WIS > CHA > STR, etc, etc). That's fine, if you enjoy that style of play as long as you realize that some people don't - you just have to get over the fact that some people will not be as effective as you want them to be.
Some people enjoy D&D by making characters they have fun with. These characters aren't often optimized. They have flaws that can turn into amazing RP moments. They'll often max out skills that will amuse them. That's fine, if you enjoy that style of play as long as you realize that some people don't - you just have to get over the fact that some people will dominate combat encounters at times and might be more effective than your character.
So what you're saying is that the GM's *CHOICES* led to the PC's bad dice rolls... Interesting, I believe this warrants some investigation. Must find a way for the DM to choose to eat something that gives me good rolls.Yes. The DM *choose* to go for rolling rather than point buy and *choose* to allow a new player to try and run with a rather cruddy set of rolls rather than CHOOSING to allow a re-roll.You do understand that YOU gimped him, right?And suddenly the GM was responsible for the PC's bad dice rolls!
Umm, yes, exactly. The DM decided to have a roll system, and what that system was, the DM picked how many dice were rolled (3?). This Dm apparently didn’t allow re-rolls or a default to point buy etc. The player had NO CHOICE AT ALL IN THOSE ROLLS. The DM mandated the player was stuck with a 13 pt buy in a low level, combat heavy campaign. The only choice the player had is (maybe) where to put those rolls .
In 3rd ed, I had a character with great rolls. The DM’s system was ‘5d6, dump 2, re-roll all ones, roll 7 stats and keep the best six”. My Current 3.5 DM is ‘4d6 drop one,roll 7 stats and drop one, roll three sets and keep the one you like” , Now, back in 1974 we rolled 3d6, in order, no re-rolls.
These were all the DM’s choice. Now, can you see a difference in what sort of PC’s each “DM’s Choice” of dice rolling might make?
Honestly thinking like this is plain selfish. There is nothing in the rules that say that if things turn bad on you and your cleric goes down that you have to stay and fight. Run away and live to fight another day if that happens. Leave the poor player who is doing his "sub-optimal" cleric alone, this isn't your game and . The other players who are power gaming munchkins will survive and maybe the player with the cleric will have to roll up a new character, but seriously who cares? It's a game and we all know that PC's die all the time.I don't see anything wrong with that character. If the player is happy with it, why make him change it? And if he actually wants to gimp it, what's the matter with that? In the worst-case-scenario, he'll die and reroll. It's not like the actual player will die.That depends on if he's going to end up taking the party down with him when he dies and how the other players feel about it. In the OP, it sounded like the others would have been in serious trouble without his heals and while his actions may not have been problematic all the time, in that particular fight, the party needed actual help from the character, not just someone barely managing to avoid being dead weight. It's hard to tell precisely where the disconnect was and what the proper remedy is, but it does sound as though there is a disconnect somewhere, and the sooner it is addressed, the happier everyone will be, including the player who made that character. Ultimately, even if that player is enjoying that character and that play style right now, at least one other person at the table is less than satisfied with the overall experience being created, and it's doubtful that even that player would enjoy that kind of lack of success routinely.
There are a few difficulties with that position. First, the party can't always run away. Second, if he made that kind of character once, he could make it again, meaning that having that player reroll a new character may not end up being much of a solution, especially if he thought it would be a way to get revenge on the rest of the party for letting his first character just die. Lastly, I wince every time I hear someone say "as long as HE is having fun that's all that matters" because this is a group game, not an individual game, and even if that individual is having fun currently, he's not going to be having much fun for very long if the group as a whole is not having much fun.
That being said, I've been in groups where that kind of mentality works fine for everyone all around; I've also been in groups where that kind of mentality ends up killing the campaign, not just that character. I didn't claim to know the precise remedy needed, simply that something was off and needed to be addressed. Many of the posts on the the thread have given a good signpost of how to address it, but that the whole "as long as HE is having fun that's all that matters" sentiment is just as bad as "he needs to automatically change his character" sentiment.
Keep in mind that the GM / OP does not only disallow point buys, he ALSO disallows to distribute the scores according to the player's wishes - they are lined up in the order of rolling. So the 14 Int was mandated by the GM's rules, not necessarily the player's wishes. The GM has no room to complain.
You’re mixing up what the Op said and what another Posters later hijack said. It appears the Op did not require them in order, but he did require those rolls be played, even tho it was less points than many NPC’s get.
And again I ask where is the problem.
Let's go to the checklist.
1. Is the player having fun? Seems so.
2. Does the player contribute to the group? He's a cleric in a party with mainly frontline guys, so almost certainly healing is needed.So what is the problem?
The DM doesn’t like the fact that the PC is not performing up to the DM’s expectations, even tho the DM insisted the PC play with stats below that of most NPC’s.
This is why I prefer 20 point buy anyway. You get the same results (for the most part) as if you had rolled well, and you get to allocate them where you want. It allows the optimizer in my party to have his precious dump stats. It allows my two role players to spread their stats out and have the weaknesses and strengths they envisioned for their character, and it allows my player who ALWAYS runs a rogue or bard (or a rogue/bard) to have the stats he needs, where he needs.
Everyone is happy. It is then on me, as the DM, to come up with encounters, both social and combat, that play to the parties strengths and weaknesses, and give everyone a chance to shine.
I think this is the mindset your party needs, or I see a lot of inter-player drama with you, and that usually culminates into a bad time.
And that is not what GAMING is about, right?
Keep in mind that the GM / OP does not only disallow point buys, he ALSO disallows to distribute the scores according to the player's wishes - they are lined up in the order of rolling. So the 14 Int was mandated by the GM's rules, not necessarily the player's wishes. The GM has no room to complain.You’re mixing up what the Op said and what another Posters later hijack said. It appears the Op did not require them in order, but he did require those rolls be played, even tho it was less points than many NPC’s get.
Right, that was my mistake.
I'd still refuse to continue playing with that character, were I the cleric. I'd try it at first, see how the GM handled the blatant disparity in power, but once I saw the results I'd have a hearty talk with the GM. I've got better things to do with my time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
rolling attributes, even when done in order, does nothing to stop stat dumping.
in fact, any campaign where you have to roll, it is smarter to wait on the character until after you roll. because your attribute rolls will determine what character you are allowed to play.
here are the 5 main issues of rolling
- it rewards cheating and discourages honesty, because some rolls are so statisitcally improbable that you might as well be cheating. in fact, using your 'lucky dice' can be considered cheating
- it creates huge disparity in attribute numbers that may lead to the sheltered anemic weakling with no education nor outside experience along with nothing above a 13, walking around with the body building, intelligent, wise, hardy, swift, charismatic, leader with nothing below a 14.
- instead of choosing race and class right away, you choose after you know what you rolled, because the dice gods dictate what classes you are allowed to play. for example, roll a low charisma? can't be a bard, paladin, oracle nor sorcerer, low int? can't be a witch nor wizard. high Strength? must be some kind of martially oriented build. it is always going to become a case of augment the benefits of the good rolls and mitigate the penalties of the poor ones
- it encourages players to choose classes whom are less dependant on their attributes, or classes who only require a single decent attribute to be effective, such as wizards, witches, or caster druids
- it makes challenge ratings harder to judge, and forces you to choose whether you make it too easy for the guy with nothing below 14 or too hard for the guy with nothing above 13.
- players are still dumping stats either way, so you did nothing to stop it, except allow lower potential penalty numbers and higher potential attribute values
if you really want to discourage excessive stat dumping. use the array method. where you come up with a predetermined array for every player to use.
Keep in mind that the GM / OP does not only disallow point buys, he ALSO disallows to distribute the scores according to the player's wishes - they are lined up in the order of rolling. So the 14 Int was mandated by the GM's rules, not necessarily the player's wishes. The GM has no room to complain.You’re mixing up what the Op said and what another Posters later hijack said. It appears the Op did not require them in order, but he did require those rolls be played, even tho it was less points than many NPC’s get.
Right, that was my mistake.
I'd still refuse to continue playing with that character, were I the cleric. I'd try it at first, see how the GM handled the blatant disparity in power, but once I saw the results I'd have a hearty talk with the GM. I've got better things to do with my time.
I don't get that extreme of a position. He's still a very playable character with the right tactics, party, and campaign. He's just not a front liner in his current configuration, which seems to be the biggest point of contention. Played as a caster, or given a longspear and played as 2nd line support, this character would be just fine and have lots of room to shine in the OP party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally prefer rolling for stats; it just feels more organic and natural to me than point buy, which usually ends up feeling more artificial to me. That being said, I have migrated away from 4d6 to 2d6+6, and as a DM, I usually give a free 16 just ensure that the character will have at least one strong attribute the player can build on; it provides a smaller range to deal with as a DM, and ensures that even the lowest stat is still playable. But then, I've also always been of the view that there are both good and bad points to both low and high stats, and as a DM, I try to play all aspects of both. Exceptional stats tend to make exceptional characters, but that just means the world expects that much more from such characters, and their reactions to such characters tend to be more extreme to reflect those expectations. I understand the desire for party balance, but perfect balance is impossible to achieve, and I still prefer at least some randomness in character creation; to me, it's just more interesting to have that organic feel.
Not sure I agree Sunshadow - for the sole reasons that the GM clearly had it in for him. Granted, wading into melee with a non-reach weapon wasn't smart, but he may not have had many options left. A crossbow without point blank shot/precise shot would have been worse, and crossbows are actually very expensive for a level 1 character.
Honestly thinking like this is plain selfish. There is nothing in the rules that say that if things turn bad on you and your cleric goes down that you have to stay and fight. Run away and live to fight another day if that happens. Leave the poor player who is doing his "sub-optimal" cleric alone, this isn't your game and . The other players who are power gaming munchkins will survive and maybe the player with the cleric will have to roll up a new character, but seriously who cares? It's a game and we all know that PC's die all the time.I don't see anything wrong with that character. If the player is happy with it, why make him change it? And if he actually wants to gimp it, what's the matter with that? In the worst-case-scenario, he'll die and reroll. It's not like the actual player will die.That depends on if he's going to end up taking the party down with him when he dies and how the other players feel about it. In the OP, it sounded like the others would have been in serious trouble without his heals and while his actions may not have been problematic all the time, in that particular fight, the party needed actual help from the character, not just someone barely managing to avoid being dead weight. It's hard to tell precisely where the disconnect was and what the proper remedy is, but it does sound as though there is a disconnect somewhere, and the sooner it is addressed, the happier everyone will be, including the player who made that character. Ultimately, even if that player is enjoying that character and that play style right now, at least one other person at the table is less than satisfied with the overall experience being created, and it's doubtful that even that player would enjoy that kind of lack of success routinely.There are a few difficulties with that position. First, the party can't always run away. Second, if he made that kind of character once, he could make it again, meaning that having that player reroll a new character may not end up being much of a solution, especially if he thought it would be a way to get revenge on the rest of the party for letting his first character just die. Lastly, I wince every time I hear someone say "as long as HE is having fun that's all that matters" because this is a group game, not an individual game, and even if that individual is having fun currently, he's not going to be having much fun for very long if the group as a whole is not having much fun.
That being said, I've been in groups where that kind of mentality works fine for everyone all around; I've also been in groups where that kind of mentality ends up killing the campaign, not just that character. I didn't claim to know the precise remedy needed, simply that something was off and needed to be addressed. Many of the posts on the the thread have given a good signpost of how to address it, but that the whole "as long as HE is having fun that's all that matters" sentiment is just as bad as "he needs to automatically change his character" sentiment.
My problem is that we already know that the other three are pretty well optimized, sure you can't run from EVERY fight, but if that cleric goes down because he decided to throw himself into melee before or after he ran out of spells, it still doesn't spell TPK. The chances are with this party makeup that they won't TPK because of this one player. So yeah, let him have fun building the character the way he wants. He isn't hurting the others because he really isn't that gimped as many people have responded already the stats aren't min/maxed nor are they placed optimally, but that stuff can be remedied later on by finding/crafting some decent gear, putting his stat bumps into the right places, and picking up feats like toughness if he wants some extra survivability. This isn't a lost cause by any means.
At level 1 could he die because he doesn't have 1-2 extra hit points being that his con is a 10 instead of a 12 or 14? Sure, but that's half the fun for some people, they like a challenge and as long as the other players are smart they won't throw their lives away on a wasted effort if things turn bad. Sh!t happens in games, bad dice rolls, silly mistakes in tactics, great dice rolls by the GM, but it's all relative to the party having fun. In my opinion if the OP just needs to lighten up a bit and let his player do what he wants and learn from his own mistakes and people on the forums need to also lighten up on the min/max/munchkin king/optimization stuff towards this player they don't even know.
My problem is that we already know that the other three are pretty well optimized, sure you can't run from EVERY fight, but if that cleric goes down because he decided to throw himself into melee before or after he ran out of spells, it still doesn't spell TPK. The chances are with this party makeup that they won't TPK because of this one player. So yeah, let him have fun building the character the way he wants. He isn't hurting the others because he really isn't that gimped as many people have responded already the stats aren't min/maxed nor are they placed optimally, but that stuff can be remedied later on by finding/crafting some decent gear, putting his stat bumps into the right places, and picking up feats like toughness if he wants some extra survivability. This isn't a lost cause by any means.
At level 1 could he die because he doesn't have 1-2 extra hit points being that his con is a 10 instead of a 12 or 14? Sure, but that's half the fun for some people, they like a challenge and as long as the other players are smart they won't throw their lives away on a wasted effort if things turn bad. Sh!t happens in games, bad dice rolls, silly mistakes in tactics, great dice rolls by the GM, but it's all relative to the party having fun. In my opinion if the OP just needs to lighten up a bit and let his player do what he wants and learn from his own mistakes and people on the forums need to also lighten up on the min/max/munchkin king/optimization stuff towards this player they don't even know.
It's hard to tell precisely where the exact difficulty in the situation is, so it's hard for me to say how accurate you are. But saying that it's all the DM's issue doesn't help any. The posts that have helped are the ones that tackle the specific difficulty raised by the DM while also making it clear that the DM needs to make sure that is the actual issue and not something else before proceeding.
Not sure I agree Sunshadow - for the sole reasons that the GM clearly had it in for him. Granted, wading into melee with a non-reach weapon wasn't smart, but he may not have had many options left. A crossbow without point blank shot/precise shot would have been worse, and crossbows are actually very expensive for a level 1 character.
Longspear. Let's the character hide behind the tank, and even with a crappy to hit, can still do very well with setting up flank and provding aid anothers to the AC or to hit of the other party members. Or at worst, a non reach weapon fighting defensively providing aid anothers. Aid another is a wonderful thing; it's a flat DC that even a Str 10 character has a reasonable chance of succeeding on at 1st level. Add in a longspear and/or fighting defensively, and you significantly reduce your chances of getting hit. Or, not my preferred option personally, but upgrading to a heavier armor is also a solution. Lots of simple fixes that don't require constantly being in harms way with low AC and low to hit.
As for the DM having it in for him, it's hard to tell based on one description of one fight. It's obvious that the DM was frustrated with that fight, but I would be hesitant to expand that frustration to the idea that the DM was out to get the cleric.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think people read original post. The character was able to assign his scores.
The problem is not even the scores, why do people even keep brining this up. The problem as some people have mentioned but most others completely overlooked and went on other agendas and tangents, is the players used the scores in a manner that would most benefit a spellcasting priest, he has a high wisdom and a good int score.
However the player has chosen to play a melee cleric. the player could easily have done
18 str
12 con
14 wis
and been a good melee cleric and would be pefectly capable of spell casting as he leveled up
The player is simply irrational, which is his right. there are no flaws with systems, or the gm rolling scheme. As to whether it matters? no it doesn't, the player in a home game (note not a PFS society game) in my opinon ought to be a free to do whatever and play however, and create whatever makes him happy within the constraints of the campain.
Of course various table and players will have different social contracts and expectations, but these are things should be stated before starting any campain.
|
|
If the player wants to melee as a character that is terribly-suited to melee combat, that's his prerogative. The PC will die sooner or later due to his foolhardy choices, and he'll roll something else. I'm not seeing a problem, so long as he's enjoying himself.
I am not sure the other players enjoy it and the GM (the OP) definitely does not enjoy it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We have no idea what the other players think, and the GM is throwing a hissy fit because the player isn't playing the way he wants him to. The GM's fun is generally in the telling of the story, not how badly his group's cleric is at hitting things.
What, praytell, would you suggest? Because it's the player's character, and he has every right to make stupid decisions with that character if his partymates are okay with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
rolling attributes, even when done in order, does nothing to stop stat dumping.
in fact, any campaign where you have to roll, it is smarter to wait on the character until after you roll. because your attribute rolls will determine what character you are allowed to play.
In many cases, that's part of the point. You get to discover your PC as part of the process.
- it rewards cheating and discourages honesty, because some rolls are so statisitcally improbable that you might as well be cheating. in fact, using your 'lucky dice' can be considered cheating
- it encourages players to choose classes whom are less dependant on their attributes, or classes who only require a single decent attribute to be effective, such as wizards, witches, or caster druids
- it makes challenge ratings harder to judge, and forces you to choose whether you make it too easy for the guy with nothing below 14 or too hard for the guy with nothing above 13.
- players are still dumping stats either way, so you did nothing to stop it, except allow lower potential penalty numbers and higher potential attribute values
Your list is, I believe, poorly thought out.
Any impulse to cheat is easily deflected by holding a character generation session in which everyone rolls and builds their PCs together. This also serves to enable the players to coordinate builds and backgrounds. A nice bonus.It has been my experience that point buy systems encourage SAD classes because they are easier to optimize to higher degrees under point buy. Players can sell down stats or elect not to invest in them to buy up their singularly important stat. Rolling methods more reliably produce good candidates for MAD classes.
Challenge ratings are actually easier to handle with rolled stats. Most high values are roughly balanced by the mix of lower ones across the same PC and across multiple PCs in a more predictable way. By contrast, a mix of min-maxers and non-min-maxers leads to wider skews in power between PCs that can't easily be handled by the CR system.
And as I've said before, the idea of dumping stats is somewhat different from putting the stats you have randomly generated into slots that minimize penalties. On the surface, they may look the same, but point buy dumping includes the extra incentive to choose the lower stats to pump the power stats. And that's a big difference.
Honestly thinking like this is plain selfish. There is nothing in the rules that say that if things turn bad on you and your cleric goes down that you have to stay and fight. Run away and live to fight another day if that happens. Leave the poor player who is doing his "sub-optimal" cleric alone, this isn't your game and as long as HE is having fun that's all that matters. The other players who are power gaming munchkins will survive and maybe the player with the cleric will have to roll up a new character, but seriously who cares? It's a game and we all know that PC's die all the time.
The party is being selfish by expecting the one person who intentionally and knowingly (as it seems based on previously given information, though who knows for sure) made a character that had no hope of meaningfully doing what it was made to do?... and it is also selfish for them to stay and try to protect a downed player? I'm not sure if we're using the same definition of selfish, but staying to help someone when it is against your better interests as well as looking out for the benefit of the whole (as opposed to yourself) don't fit what "selfish" means to me.
That aside, DM needs to talk to the guy and see why he's doing what he's doing; he might very well have good reasons for the stuff he does (ie trying to save spells and he has nothing else to do besides ineffectively swing). Also 13 point buy is amazingly harsh, like harsh enough that the PC would be better off opening a tavern somewhere and marrying a local girl.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has been my experience that point buy systems encourage SAD classes because they are easier to optimize to higher degrees under point buy. Players can sell down stats or elect not to invest in them to buy up their singularly important stat.
That matches my experience as well. Point-buy loves the wizard and hates the monk with a passion. And since the wizard is already >> the monk, this is a sad state of affairs.
Conversely, an array like all 14s (for those of you who started playing later on) -- or even all 12s (for people from my generation) -- favors MAD characters at the expense of casters. But it's kind of boring.
Dice rolling has all kinds of problems, but it also has one advantage: it's an excuse for everyone to sit around and throw big handfuls of dice and cheer and groan over the results. Sometimes that's priceless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some players aren't out to discover their character, Mr. Dunn. I get that by reading a book. When I play DnD, I want to create my character.
Out of curiousity, what is your opinion on rolling one set of stats that the entire party would use, rearranged as they like?
|
|
Some players aren't out to discover their character, Mr. Dunn. I get that by reading a book. When I play DnD, I want to create my character.
Out of curiousity, what is your opinion on rolling one set of stats that the entire party would use, rearranged as they like?
And this player may not be like you. Is that wrongbadfun?
The problem is not even the scores, why do people even keep brining this up. The problem as some people have mentioned but most others completely overlooked and went on other agendas and tangents, is the players used the scores in a manner that would most benefit a spellcasting priest, he has a high wisdom and a good int score.
However the player has chosen to play a melee cleric. the player could easily have done
18 str
12 con
14 wisand been a good melee cleric and would be pefectly capable of spell casting as he leveled up
The player is simply irrational, which is his right. there are no flaws with systems, or the gm rolling scheme.
Except playing a melee cleric is irrational to me. By taking a 18 str, you lose higher DC's . And later, bonus spells.
And we don;t know that the players wants to play a melee cleric, that may have been forced upon him too.
And since the Gm "rolling scheme" made a new PC with stats lower than NPC's, whilst other players did better, then yes, there is something wrong with it.
And this player may not be like you. Is that wrongbadfun?Some players aren't out to discover their character, Mr. Dunn. I get that by reading a book. When I play DnD, I want to create my character.
Out of curiousity, what is your opinion on rolling one set of stats that the entire party would use, rearranged as they like?
You mean a player may want to have randomly generated scores while others want PB? I guess you could satisfy the random gen guy by creating a set of scores that add up to the PB and having him use those. They may as well be random, since he had no hand in determining them.
Except playing a melee cleric is irrational to me. By taking a 18 str, you lose higher DC's . And later, bonus spells.
And we don;t know that the players wants to play a melee cleric, that may have been forced upon him too.
And since the Gm "rolling scheme" made a new PC with stats lower than NPC's, whilst other players did better, then yes, there is something wrong with it.
Like I've said before, it's a perfectly playable character, regardless of what the point buy comes out to be, with the right tactics and expectations. It is not a front liner cleric, and if that was the intent of the character, which is hard to tell or not from the little bit of information we have, but the indication is that at least in this fight, that is how it was run, and if that is a routine thing, a major rebuild may be in order. Otherwise, simple changes like giving him a longspear until the spells really kick in and/or giving him medium armor would resolve a lot of the difficulties.
I really don't understand the hate against rolling dice to create stats, and the insistence to compare their power to a point buy character. The stats are definitely not something that can be ignored, but this cleric is entirely playable; it may take a bit more effort than a character that rolled better initial stats, but it's not that hard to shore up the weaknesses it has, just change tactics and gear up a bit, and focus on it's strengths rather than trying to hammer past it's weakness as if they weren't there. In the end would probably end up being more fun precisely because he can't simply plow through everything with nary a thought.
If the campaign fails, you have a fall guy to blame it on. Screw role-play, everyone knows clerics have to have certain stats or fail. Pathfinder should insist on preset ability scores for classes so players don't make this error as well as mandatory equipment.
Yeah. Replace him with an optimized cleric NPC who works off of a flow chart. Then go deeper, it sounds like the party may not be spending every resource in the most optimal way, there should be only perfectly made pre-gens. However the players may not use the perfect pre-gens right. Replace them all with flow charts.
The term "RPG" is largely fluff, the crunch is clearly for a tactical combat simulator. TCS...I think the acronym is taken. :P
We can replace Role Playing Game with Reactive Statistical Analysis, Player Characters can become Number Bundles. No one else required, you set up a combat by flow chart and then see how many new numbers you can add to your NB. The NB with the most numbers wins.